MLB The Show 17 News Post

OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

12:27 PM - April 22, 2017 by RaychelSnr

In this video, Mike Lowe takes a look at which contract setup in OSFM's 1.0 vs. 1.75 rosters is the right one for you. Mike discusses the merits of each and in the lengthy discussion really hits on several topics that will help you figure out which contract setup is the best for you...until the new version of OSFM arrives that is.

Be sure to Subscribe to Operation Sports on YouTube.

Also, be sure to check out the OSFM rosters if you haven't already on the Operation Sports Forums.

Game: MLB The Show 17Hype Score: 9/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS4Votes for game: 36 - View All

Member Comments

# 1 BillPeener @ 04/22/17 01:41 PM

Thank you, Chris. One suggestion: in the future, consider putting the big takeaway at the beginning of the video for people who might not have time to watch the full video. Especially when the ultimate conclusion is that there is no good answer.

The biggest takeaway is at 46:30:

It's not about the contracts or the rosters. This is a game, and it's about having fun.

In my view, the worst thing we did as baseball fans is try to make these games authentic to MLB. I remember when games didn't even have real rosters or put much of any time into realistic details. I wanted realism, so playing with fictional players or unrealistic simming was annoying. That is, until I gave up on realism and learned to enjoy the game for the game.

I agree with Chris: maybe we're better off not getting so worked up over making the game as realistic as possible. Because of the way the game simulates, we're better off saving ourselves the headache and just play how we want.

What I'm currently doing is making a completely fictional roster where every player has 99 speed, 99 power, 99 potential, and 99 durability. Everything else is 0. Pitchers get 99 movement and 99 potential. Yeah, maybe it's stupid, but I'm going to have a lot of fun simming through. Imagine the 2nd year when new players come in with much higher ratings for contact, fielding, velocity, stamina, and so on. That first year players will be considered unicorns 10-15 years in when they're still around with ridiculous speed and power (and who knows what other inflated ratings they acquired thanks to their 99 potentials), but they'll also still be frustrating if their fielding hardly improved beyond 0.

I'm finally excited to play again. Forget MLB - it's not something this game (or other games for that matter) can realistically simulate. There will always be more and new glaring issues.

# 2 Caulfield @ 04/22/17 03:39 PM

real contracts for me, please.

# 3 HolyStroke3 @ 04/22/17 04:10 PM

The biggest issue with real contracts is with the way budgets are set, you can't trade big money players. Honestly that's really a problem with budgets but for now that's what we have

# 4 ML @ 04/22/17 06:45 PM

Not being able to eat a portion of the contract when trading away players really hurts...

# 5 Bondsfan @ 04/22/17 07:25 PM

I don't understand why 1.5 is left out of this argument. 1.0 is real contracts. 1.5 was default contracts. 1.75 was contracts adjusted to lower than default. So why are we comparing 1.0 to 1.75, when 1.5 was contracts matching the default SCEA contracts?

# 6 Mike Lowe @ 04/23/17 10:12 PM

I agree that it would help some to have the ability to offset part of a hefty contract. At the same time, I don't think it's rare to see the game not being able to trade high-priced players. That's what happens in real life--no one wants those guys! (ie Josh Hamilton, for example).

# 7 TattooedEvil @ 04/23/17 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bondsfan


	I don't understand why 1.5 is left out of this argument. 1.0 is real contracts. 1.5 was default contracts. 1.75 was contracts adjusted to lower than default. So why are we comparing 1.0 to 1.75, when 1.5 was contracts matching the default SCEA contracts?

cuz 1.75 has the real years

# 8 TattooedEvil @ 04/23/17 11:25 PM

i will say u dont throw secondary positions into account at all. Phillips to the Pirates with Harrison there....u dont mention that Harrison can play everywhere, so maybe thats why Pitt gets Phillips so that Harrison can cover an injury to say maybe Cutch. Schwarber to the Mets, u only talk about LF...well they may use him at C since D'arnaud is made of glass. Just pointing that out.

# 9 Mike Lowe @ 04/23/17 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TattooedEvil


	i will say u dont throw secondary positions into account at all. Phillips to the Pirates with Harrison there....u dont mention that Harrison can play everywhere, so maybe thats why Pitt gets Phillips so that Harrison can cover an injury to say maybe Cutch. Schwarber to the Mets, u only talk about LF...well they may use him at C since D'arnaud is made of glass. Just pointing that out.

For sure. The game doesn't handle secondary positions very effectively, and there is currently no implementation for a player to ever have a secondary position overtake as the new primary position.

One of the game's biggest flaws is it's inability to progress or learn new positions.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

# 10 TattooedEvil @ 04/24/17 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Lowe


	For sure. The game doesn't handle secondary positions very effectively, and there is currently no implementation for a player to ever have a secondary position overtake as the new primary position. One of the game's biggest flaws is it's inability to progress or learn new positions. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

totally agree

# 11 Bondsfan @ 04/24/17 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TattooedEvil


	cuz 1.75 has the real years

I guess then, I wonder why they went with different contract values then the for 1.75. As opposed to default values but just corrected the number of years. The contracts all seem way lower than default contracts when you compare 1.5 to 1.75. I have no interest in the 1.0 and real contracts because i'm certain it'd imagine that would break the system over multiple seasons. You would think, default values would be best since that is based on the actual default SCEA values. I wasnt sure what prompted going the other way and lowering the values from the scea default. Maybe that's better, but to me it just seems like it's opening the possibility to break in the system in the long run. It's just not something that I've seen discussed here, it seems like everyone seems to reference 1.75 when referring to "default contracts" when they clearly are much lower than actual default contracts.

# 12 TattooedEvil @ 04/24/17 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bondsfan


	I guess then, I wonder why they went with different contract values then the for 1.75. As opposed to default values but just corrected the number of years. The contracts all seem way lower than default contracts when you compare 1.5 to 1.75. I have no interest in the 1.0 and real contracts because i'm certain it'd imagine that would break the system over multiple seasons. You would think, default values would be best since that is based on the actual default SCEA values. I wasnt sure what prompted going the other way and lowering the values from the scea default. Maybe that's better, but to me it just seems like it's opening the possibility to break in the system in the long run. It's just not something that I've seen discussed here, it seems like everyone seems to reference 1.75 when referring to "default contracts" when they clearly are much lower than actual default contracts.

i havent looked completely but from what i heard they are because they wanted to make the team payrolls close to real life

# 13 Brandwin @ 04/24/17 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TattooedEvil


	cuz 1.75 has the real years

I figured 1.5 was real years as well. Oh well, not starting over now. Guys will just become free agents when they become free agents.

EDIT: When I brought up 1.5, I meant the one nyfan84 made. I believe contract years are correct, unless they weren't correct with the roster he used. I dunno too much!

# 14 BillPeener @ 04/24/17 11:52 AM

3 key points:

1. No roster set is ever going to be perfect.
2. Once we accept that, we then accept that no current roster set is even close to perfection, partly because of the game engine interfering with realism (for example, the SP stamina bug might result in fewer innings or fewer wins, resulting in less realistic stats and thus we misperceive ratings as wrong).
3. Currently available are a few predominantly accurate roster sets, each offering its own advantages.

From there, we read each roster set's descriptions, check reviews, and test them out. This particular thread is about deciding which roster set's contract setup is what you prefer.

# 15 RidinDwnKingsley @ 04/24/17 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bondsfan


	I guess then, I wonder why they went with different contract values then the for 1.75. As opposed to default values but just corrected the number of years. The contracts all seem way lower than default contracts when you compare 1.5 to 1.75. I have no interest in the 1.0 and real contracts because i'm certain it'd imagine that would break the system over multiple seasons. You would think, default values would be best since that is based on the actual default SCEA values. I wasnt sure what prompted going the other way and lowering the values from the scea default. Maybe that's better, but to me it just seems like it's opening the possibility to break in the system in the long run. It's just not something that I've seen discussed here, it seems like everyone seems to reference 1.75 when referring to "default contracts" when they clearly are much lower than actual default contracts.

Not sure what you are talking about with the contracts as 1.75 is 1.50 with more fixes and the guys whos contract were originally missed in 1.5 adjusted. Other than that its the same.... so im assuming thats why be used 1.75, its the better one.

Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

# 16 SilverBullet1929 @ 04/24/17 10:56 PM

So there's no right answer here? Either will work out fine for me when I start my franchises this week? Or is there a brief cliffnotes version of the pros and cons of each?

# 17 Mike Lowe @ 04/25/17 09:26 AM

I'm the guy who made the video, and here is how I would best try and summarize:

After carefully reviewing the roster sets and their differences (mostly contracts), I saw very similar wonky things happening. This, to me, has far less to do with the roster sets themselves, and more to do with the game's trade engine still not truly understanding their team's pulse when deciding on who to retain and who to try and obtain.

There are a lot of factors that go into that, and frankly, it can drive you nuts. My advice was to find what you enjoy about the game (and baseball), and move forward with it. Don't let it eat you alive, because it will if you allow it.

I don't like 30-team control as I don't like to dabble, but I've turned it on this year as a "just in case" because technically you can undo a bad trade just by redoing it again.

Hope this helps! Go enjoy the game! I think I said something in the video to the affect of: If we expected perfection all of the time in our daily lives like we do in gaming, we'd never get out of bed.

# 18 SilverBullet1929 @ 04/25/17 05:30 PM

(Delete) ...

# 19 SilverBullet1929 @ 05/09/17 07:11 PM

Do we know which contracts 2.5 will use?

More Links

OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?